16:9 Or 2.35:1

[bbar]

and I know some who have gone back to 16:9 so cant be half bad.

comes down to how much 16:9 stuff you watch vs scope I think.

for same given width, with a scope screen - height of 16:9 stuff is considerably reduced. an answer for some is given a same width screen go for a 16:9 one. I know the purists will have a double hernia on the mention and have stormed off on reading already considering it heresy. but its an arrangement have seen work just fine. for scope the screen goes up a tad, for TV and 16:9 stuff you use the full height of it. a lot of movies are 16:9 still as well. so again if a lot of viewing is 16:9 then maybe a better arrangement all around. It means your not restricted in screen choice and cost because you have to buy a scope screen and means you can enjoy both scope and 16:9 without detrement of either.

like lyle in considering a pj, I went through same convulsions easier to just put it on back burner in the end hehe, especially given our fragmented viewing patterns etc.

Well said.

If you want to watch TV, possibly a gaming console and Blu-ray/DVD then 16:9 screen is probably a better choice. It is also a lower cost alternative in many cases as one can go with a lower cost projector and possibly forgo the cost of an A Lens.

[minty]

I said it just to stir mate but still find it interesting that you can't be seen to like 16 x 9 and not be treated almost as a leper nowadays, everybody has their own view and I respect that, mine is that I like both formats and both have their plus and negatives especially factoring in cost, flame away those who disagree as it's no skin off mine.....

and congrats to the TS on his informed choice.......

I would think most people would like both formats Yorac, i certainly do, and like the OP i made an informed choice on the basis of my majority viewing and the fact i'm fortunate enough to have a dedicated room. Check out my last line in post #24.

comes down to how much 16:9 stuff you watch vs scope I think.

Exactely what i said in post #24.

A while back i came up with 4 rules if considering going scope (kinda like the 3 rules in i,Robot ), being......

1. Can you afford it?

2. Do you have a wide enough room?

3. What AR is the majority of your viewing?

and 4. damned if i can remember #4, sorry

Anyway if you anwsered yes to all 4 go for it, 3 yesses and still ok, 2 and probalary not suitable, 1 or none - forget it.

At the time i had them in my signature but after a few weeks i deleted them as at the time i didn't want to be perceived as a smartarse/expert on the subject of scope (i'm just an ordinary punter and far from being an expert) and also the corresponding blow torch. Now i feel more confident on the subject and also have softened my view somewhat so as soon as i remember no.4 rule i will put them back in my sig.

If anyone remembers #4 (several people commented at the time) let me know please. Damn memory.

[Highjinx]

One thing to keep in mind is that the detail found is the Cinema vs Bluray is vastly different, though the pixel(2k or 1998 x 1080(16:9/1.78:1)/2048 x 858(2.35:1) Vs 1920 x 1080/810) is similar, the detail addresed to those pixels can be 6x higher in the cinema, so one can sit closer and still have a good image as long as the pixel grid is not visible.

Sitting at the closest acceptable Cinema ratios for Blu Ray may result in a visual fest of compression and other artifacts on some encodes, but many don't 'see' these negatives till they are pointed out....so perhaps like rainbows on single chip DLP's don't look for them. One can mask those artifacts by projecting a less bright image, but see a good bright image (20-25 lumens/sqFt) and it's so hard to go back!

With BluRay sticking to the 55 plus a few pixels per degree in the horizontal plane will give one the best image quality, if the encode is an exceptional one, perhaps closer. If one plans to have their seating based on optimal encodes, if a less than optimal encode is presented.......can one move the seating back? Perhaps plan the seating so the front row is at the best seating position for the optimal encodes and seat ones self in the rear row for less than optimal encodes.

The following maybe worth considering, next to 4 way masking of a large 4:3 screen, it's the best of both worlds I feel, if one can be motivated.

I'm working on a twin screen system both motorised 16:9, both electrically maskable to any ratio wider than 16:9, the larger screen is mounted in front of the smaller at a precise calculated distance, so the larger screen when masked to 2.35:1 appears to be exactly the same height as the smaller displaying a full height 16:9 image. For super 16:9 encodes(I-Max types) the larger screen will be used in full 16:9 mode. The masked larger screen(masked to 2.35:1) is physically 15% wider but 13% less in hight than the smaller screen at 16:9 or 1.78:1, But will appear 33% wider and the same height as the smaller 16:9 screen. Light loss is less than conventional CIH zooming (to 33% wider) and thus brighter. Both screens will be mounted within the 'window' for optimal image quality, the smaller at the far point and the larger at the closest(a touch closer than optimal in reality) Both screens have to be mounted precisely paralell to each other....yaw adjustment is required on one.

The result for 2.35:1 on the larger screen will be CIH & CIA in one compared to the smaller screen displaying a 16:9 image, with no scaling induced softening or artifacts, no use of an anamorphic lens, no pincushion issues etc. One issue is having to enlarge/reduce image size and refocus depending which screen, so a projector with zoom focus memory is a benefit....perhaps JVC's next models? This would have an added benefit of starting off the presentation on the smaller screen for the trailers etc and hitting the lens memory button on the projector remote, lower the large screen and mask for the wide screen presentation....cool!

The link is my current maskable 16:9 screen, the new larger screen will be similar but mounted closer. Giving me 2 x 2.35:1 sizes and 2 x 16:9/1.78:1 sizes all with zero black/grey bars....along with the benefits mentioned above.

May be an option for you too.

[Johnny_Boy]

Very cool solution to the masking problem on motorised screens

Not so sure about the tv though jks

[Highjinx]

Very cool solution to the masking problem on motorised screens

Not so sure about the tv though jks

Ha Ha! ....Bought in 87' had to have it 'special ordered'........best damn SD CRT Monitor ever IMO....Sony Profeel QM. Still works, hardly used...be lucky to have 1000hrs on it.

It stays as a collectors item!

[BladeRnR]

Ha Ha! ....Bought in 87' had to have it 'special ordered'........best damn SD CRT Monitor ever IMO....Sony Profeel QM. Still works, hardly used...be lucky to have 1000hrs on it.

It stays as a collectors item! power hungry, technological anachronism pointing to a bygone era that is, at best, an unfortunate (but necessary) footnote in the annals of home entertainment history.

Corrected

Edited December 18, 2010 by BladeRnR

[BladeRnR]

...Lots of words...

Funds permitting do this:

All Aspect Ratios done properly

Blade

[Highjinx]

It stays as a collectors item! power hungry, technological anachronism pointing to a bygone era that is, at best, an unfortunate (but necessary) footnote in the annals of home entertainment history.

Corrected

That's not quite accurate... CRT's use around half that of an LCD. Depending on the brand, plasma use around 50% more than LCD.

[50mxe20]

I said it just to stir mate but still find it interesting that you can't be seen to like 16 x 9 and not be treated almost as a leper nowadays, everybody has their own view and I respect that, mine is that I like both formats and both have their plus and negatives especially factoring in cost, flame away those who disagree as it's no skin off mine.....

Still it was a legit question.

I am still 50/50 on the decision.

Was 60/40 CIH but have changed my mind a bit of late.

I'd really like to hear why you prefer it.

[Highjinx]

I think both AR should be as impressive as each, consider that only a relative handful of movies have been made anamorphically(600 or so), the remainder are matted ie cropped 35mm frames.

Size is relative to viewing distance, with a 16:9 screen plan to have 3 rows of seating use back and mid rows for 16:9 veiwing and for 2.35:1 viewing use the mid and front rows.

With a 2.35:1 screen use the back and mid rows for 2.35:1 viewing and mid and front rows for 16:9 viewing...sweet!

[wilsact]

That's not quite accurate... CRT's use around half that of an LCD. Depending on the brand, plasma use around 50% more than LCD.

The new model Panasonic 5 star energy rated plasma's are not far off or even better than some similar size lcd's (little off topic of course- )

http://blogs.panasonic.com.au/consumer/201...era-plasma-tvs/

Hmmmmmm now scope or 16:9.........decisions decisions-

Edited December 18, 2010 by wilsact

[SDL]

This resonated with me and sums up why I went scope:

Ever since the home theater market started, the objective has been to bring the full movie experience into our homes. And, ever since home theater started, we’ve been missing the mark. Missing it big time. Typically, we see 16:9 (or more correctly, 1.78:1) aspect ratio screens in home theaters. Essentially, with a 1.78:1 screen, all we’ve been delivering are huge front projection TV sets. Oops...not exactly what we’ve been wanting to achieve. In fact, 1.78:1 has been so prevalent that the digital chips in our DLP (and most LCOS/DILA) projectors have also ended up with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

The disconnect is that most movies are produced in a Cinemascope aspect ratio, or 2.35:1. In other words, the movie is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. Cinemascope has proven to be just what the director ordered because it involves the viewer more into the movie. More of the movie is in our peripheral vision providing a more involving environment. One way to compare 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 is to say it is the same difference as watching the world go by through your picture window or stepping out onto your front porch and taking part in the world.

[SDL]

This resonated with me and sums up why I went scope:

Ever since the home theater market started, the objective has been to bring the full movie experience into our homes. And, ever since home theater started, we’ve been missing the mark. Missing it big time. Typically, we see 16:9 (or more correctly, 1.78:1) aspect ratio screens in home theaters. Essentially, with a 1.78:1 screen, all we’ve been delivering are huge front projection TV sets. Oops...not exactly what we’ve been wanting to achieve. In fact, 1.78:1 has been so prevalent that the digital chips in our DLP (and most LCOS/DILA) projectors have also ended up with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

The disconnect is that most movies are produced in a Cinemascope aspect ratio, or 2.35:1. In other words, the movie is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. Cinemascope has proven to be just what the director ordered because it involves the viewer more into the movie. More of the movie is in our peripheral vision providing a more involving environment. One way to compare 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 is to say it is the same difference as watching the world go by through your picture window or stepping out onto your front porch and taking part in the world.

[Highjinx]

The new model Panasonic 5 star energy rated plasma's are not far off or even better than some similar size lcd's (little off topic of course- )

http://blogs.panasonic.com.au/consumer/201...era-plasma-tvs/

Hmmmmmm now scope or 16:9.........decisions decisions-

Nice them Panasonics.

16:9 or 2.35:1 screen....? If one subscribes to the thinking that 2.35:1 should be wider than 16:9 under all circumstances then get a 2.35:1 screen, If one think both should have equal impact then 4way masking or a twin screen solution.

......and do the seat swap trick with either a 16:9 or 2.35:1 screen

[Highjinx]

Ever since the home theater market started, the objective has been to bring the full movie experience into our homes. And, ever since home theater started, we’ve been missing the mark. Missing it big time. Typically, we see 16:9 (or more correctly, 1.78:1) aspect ratio screens in home theaters. Essentially, with a 1.78:1 screen, all we’ve been delivering are huge front projection TV sets. Oops...not exactly what we’ve been wanting to achieve. In fact, 1.78:1 has been so prevalent that the digital chips in our DLP (and most LCOS/DILA) projectors have also ended up with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

The disconnect is that most movies are produced in a Cinemascope aspect ratio, or 2.35:1. In other words, the movie is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. Cinemascope has proven to be just what the director ordered because it involves the viewer more into the movie. More of the movie is in our peripheral vision providing a more involving environment. One way to compare 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 is to say it is the same difference as watching the world go by through your picture window or stepping out onto your front porch and taking part in the world.

The bold text area is incorrect as the break down is roughly 50/50 with bias toward 16:9 if one thinks of the indi's .....and when one thinks of the most involving movie format I-Max.....one needs to question the rest of the text.

Which ever screen AR one gets, having the ability to vari the seating/viewing positions will give one the best involvment

[bbar]

Still it was a legit question.

I am still 50/50 on the decision.

Was 60/40 CIH but have changed my mind a bit of late.

I'd really like to hear why you prefer it.

I think Yorac is talking more of the format than screen shape. Debate here has gone to which format is better 16:9 or 2:35:1.

Not sure it's a productive debate. Both formats exist with TV being predominantly 16:9 unless they are playing a scope film . Gaming is 16:9 and Film is about 65% scope and 35% 1.78:1.

If majority of viewing is in 16:9 format then 16:9 screen is probably the best.

If majority of viewing is film then scope screen is probably best.

Reason for scope screen is twofold -

1) If viewing distance of say 3 X height is optimal and height changes between scope and 16X9 encodes on 16:9 screen then 16X9 viewing is optimal and scope encodes become non-optimal. If majority of viewing is scope then why configure screen and hence image height to something that is sub-optimal for the majority of ones viewing.

2) Some find projecting the black bars onto the white 16:9 screen sub-optimal and prefer projecting them onto a dark wall and screen border. Others prefer an A lens and not to project black bars at all.

Or think of it this way -

A scope screen is just a 16:9 screen extended at both sides to allow for the wider image of a scope encode; and a scope encode is just a 16:9 encode that has additional image on both sides.

This begs the question, why do I want to shrink the size of a scope image to fit on a 16:9 screen, why not just get a scope screen and allow the image to fill the entire screen?

You might say, I did not shrink it, the buggers that made the DVD/BLU-ray shrank it to fit the 16:9 based displays/projectors. Ok I say, but why not expand it back to full size. Cannot be done with standard display; but can be done by zooming with a PJ or using a PJ with vertical stretch and A-Lens.

It comes at a cost, with needing the likes of a JVC XX PJ for larger scope screens or the Pana AE4000 for mid size scope screens or a PJ and A-Lens. The screen cost is about the same I believe.

In the past one could get a MK3 lens plus corrector and Benq 6000 for about 5700 and a JVC HD550 was about 5.5 I believe and the 950 7k ?

If one went 16:9 then one could get the BenQ for 3k which is a saving of 2.5k - 4k depending on PJ and configuration (i.e. lens or not). These numbers are approximates as cannot remember exact pricing. Not even sure they would represent the JVC X3 and X7 street pricing; but it should not be far off.

So, as many have said more succinctly - It is all down to cost and what format one watches predominantly.

No matter which way you slice it, watching scope on a 16:9 screen is sub-optimal assuming the 16:9 screen has been configured for optimal 16:9 viewing. One could also have, as example, the 16:9 screen such that seating is 2.6 times height for 16:9 encodes which would bring scope encodes closer to optimum. This is a reasonable compromise if cost is an issue.

Remember my comments are based on getting optimal viewing for both encodes; and should not be construed as saying that one or the other is better or worse; nor that playing a scope encode on a 16:9 screen is bad. There are some that say there viewing enjoyment is not affected by the change in height and see no value in maintaining the image height. In that case going scope is a waste of money ! I am one who finds the drop in size unacceptable and hence the scope setup.

Edited December 18, 2010 by bbar

[SDL]

The bold text area is incorrect as the break down is roughly 50/50 with bias toward 16:9 if one thinks of the indi's .....and when one thinks of the most involving movie format I-Max.....one needs to question the rest of the text.

Which ever screen AR one gets, having the ability to vari the seating/viewing positions will give one the best involvment

I very much doubt it is 50:50 at all. And I-Max is fine if you have an I'Max theatre in your house (a real IMax not a little gimmick one like they have at some cinemas and pass it off as IMax). But the fact that we have peripheral vision that works horizontally means the text is in fact...well fact. That is unless your vision works the other way to most humans?

[betty boop]

hi bryan, very much a sub optimal situation either way whether set it up for scope or set it up for 16:9 one way or the other be compromising one of them. cant set up image distance for both. unless have two screens or two seating distances we're starting to sound like owen. its a bit like those that go on that cant have 2ch and ht in the same room. bull dust to that one too. have experienced great systems that do both brilliantly. and same goes with the 16:9 and scope argument. havent seen a scope setup where I start saying gee thats compromising the 16:9 image in picture quality.

also I dont buy the screen width argument. for many of us we're looking at the widest screen we can buy doesnt matter scope or 16:9. so image width a constant. so we could get a scope screen that will compromise 16:9 image height. or get a 16:9 screen that would do the same width be it 16:9 or scope...see what am talking about.

the other thing to consider is for many they are adding scope to an existing 16:9 screen setup. so what do they do ? rip out a perfectly good screen which is likely as wide as they can go anyways, sell the thing for a pittance and replace it with a scope screen the same width why ?

there are others like myself who would only go a drop down screen if ever. scope has tiny amount of available screens in that form compared to 16:9 and the minute you mention scope it seems to add to the cost as well as no doubt any manufactuerer is selling lot less scope than 16:9

the above discussion is really just about which screen.

re whether to go for scope equipment or stay 16:9 in equipment capability, in my opinion once decided on scope. and can bare the massive costs its not really an argument more of a justification

[betty boop]

I very much doubt it is 50:50 at all. And I-Max is fine if you have an I'Max theatre in your house (a real IMax not a little gimmick one like they have at some cinemas and pass it off as IMax). But the fact that we have peripheral vision that works horizontally means the text is in fact...well fact. That is unless your vision works the other way to most humans?

like mark techer said at the selby gtg, a good step forward for scope would be if the studios broke BD spec and made them anamorphic like DVDs were, otherwise your still dealing with a 16:9 format image, no matter what the source material !

[BladeRnR]

That's not quite accurate... CRT's use around half that of an LCD. Depending on the brand, plasma use around 50% more than LCD.

Wikipedia extract:

Plasma displays use as much power per square meter as a CRT or an AMLCD television.[citation needed] Power consumption varies greatly with picture content, with bright scenes drawing significantly more power than darker ones - this is also true of CRTs.

But as Wilsact highlighted, the new Panasonics Plasma (13th Generation) power consumption is very impressive.

Blade

Edited December 18, 2010 by BladeRnR

[BladeRnR]

I very much doubt it is 50:50 at all. And I-Max is fine if you have an I'Max theatre in your house (a real IMax not a little gimmick one like they have at some cinemas and pass it off as IMax). But the fact that we have peripheral vision that works horizontally means the text is in fact...well fact. That is unless your vision works the other way to most humans?

Where have you been SDL? HJ's sight is revered here on DTV Forum. He can see inter-pixel gaps and artefacts in a moving image from 3-4 meters away. I cannot substantiate that he's also "faster than a speeding bullet" though

Blade

Edited December 18, 2010 by BladeRnR

[bbar]

hi bryan, very much a sub optimal situation either way whether set it up for scope or set it up for 16:9 one way or the other be compromising one of them. cant set up image distance for both. unless have two screens or two seating distances we're starting to sound like owen. its a bit like those that go on that cant have 2ch and ht in the same room. bull dust to that one too. have experienced great systems that do both brilliantly. and same goes with the 16:9 and scope argument. havent seen a scope setup where I start saying gee thats compromising the 16:9 image in picture quality.

also I dont buy the screen width argument. for many of us we're looking at the widest screen we can buy doesnt matter scope or 16:9. so image width a constant. so we could get a scope screen that will compromise 16:9 image height. or get a 16:9 screen that would do the same width be it 16:9 or scope...see what am talking about.

the other thing to consider is for many they are adding scope to an existing 16:9 screen setup. so what do they do ? rip out a perfectly good screen which is likely as wide as they can go anyways, sell the thing for a pittance and replace it with a scope screen the same width why ?

there are others like myself who would only go a drop down screen if ever. scope has tiny amount of available screens in that form compared to 16:9 and the minute you mention scope it seems to add to the cost as well as no doubt any manufactuerer is selling lot less scope than 16:9

the above discussion is really just about which screen.

re whether to go for scope equipment or stay 16:9 in equipment capability, in my opinion once decided on scope. and can bare the massive costs its not really an argument more of a justification

Hey Al,

If we use height as the measurement for optimal then a scope screen allows for constant height thereby allowing optimal for both. So an optimal 16:9 screen when sitting at 3.6 metres is a 100" 16:9 screen which has a height of 1.25 metres. Personally I prefer to go to with a 105" which has 131cm height giving a 2.75 distance to height ratio. This also makes the 16:9 image at a viewing angle of 35.5 degrees which is THX recommended. Sitting about mid theatre . I prefer also as I find the 16:9 image to start looking small when below 34 degrees and THX recommend not going below 32 degrees and SMTP not below 26 degrees.

So, basically a 130" scope screen will give a 105" 16:9 image at 35.5 degrees and both will be at 2.75 distance to height; or one could go with a 125" scope screen which would give a 100" 16:9 image with a 33.75 degree viewing angle and a 2.9 distance to height ratio. Both of these provide the optimal range for both encodes; with the former being just about spot on for THX recommended viewing angle for 16:9 encodes.

Re upgrading screen and PJ or adding lens to get scope when currently have a 16:9 setup - Agree not worth throwing out what one has as it would be a massive cost and would suggest to wait till upgrade time, ala time for new PJ. Then only need to upgrade screen and can sell old one. Loss should be no more than that of selling Audio gear; but agree that is also painful at times.

Understand the argument of room not being wide enough and that may force one to have sub-optimal viewing for the majority of their viewing.

Again, if one sits at 3.6 metres then 125-130" scope would be optimum. Width of 16:9 is 221cm and for a scope is 293cm. Both could be accommodated in a 3.1 m wide room whilst the scope screen does require speakers to be below the screen. The 16:9 can have speakers on the sides of the screen as there would be about 45cm either side.

Given no equipment and about to purchase screen , PJ...etc , one needs to ask oneself, If I watch film only, then am I better to get a scope screen and place seating optimal to the scope screen giving optimal scope and 16:9 viewing or am I better to get a bigger 16:9 screen and sit further back and have optimal viewing for maybe 30% of what I watch and sub-optimal for 70%

Pulldown is interesting and agree harder to find scope pulldowns as most are from the higher end suppliers meaning of course, higher $$. A pulldown can be anything one wants as one just pulls it down and the AR changes as you pull it down. To me the same applies, get a 135" 16:9 pulldown and pull it down until it gives a 128" scope image which will give a 104" 16:9 image. Place seating at 3.6 metres and voila, optimal viewing for both.

Again, I am speaking to optimal and going with 16:9 screen is fine, just not optimal given one agrees that there is an optimal viewing distance based on height and other such THX and SMPTE recommendations. If one does not subscribe to that philosophy then does not really matter. Also, an individual may prefer the back quarter seating in a theatre whilst another prefers the first quarter. In that case I believe screen size should be adjusted to each individuals optimum. Problem comes when one in family, say the BOSS prefers the back quarter and , the lesser half prefers the front quarter. Answer, ensure 2 rows of seating or compromise and do what the Boss says..

Re-cost as per my previous post cost is not substantially different. Cost of going scope over 16:9 is somewhere around 2.5 k. In a 30k room that is 8 percent.

Hey get a 5k Pre, 4k amp, 12k speakers and 1.7k screen, 1k blu-ray player, 1k rack with cabling and mount, 3k seating then what the hell, go with a 5.5k PJ instead of a 3K PJ. Have not even counted curtains or sound absorption material.

then again if going HTIB at $400 with a 200 screen then probably going with a 1k PJ so agree not worth the extra to go scope.

Edited December 19, 2010 by bbar

[Highjinx]

Wikipedia extract:

Plasma displays use as much power per square meter as a CRT or an AMLCD television.[citation needed] Power consumption varies greatly with picture content, with bright scenes drawing significantly more power than darker ones - this is also true of CRTs.

But as Wilsact highlighted, the new Panasonics Plasma (13th Generation) power consumption is very impressive.

Blade

[citation needed] Apply modern electronics and power supplies to CRT........and.......the problem was bulk and expense to go to larger sizes.

SDL...there was a good thread on AVS regarding films and AR, they concluded that the break down was approx 50/50 for movies. One needs to ask ones self why I-Max came up with that ratio for the most practical format for visual immersion, they could have gone to a much larger 2.35:1 AR using 4, 5 or 6 70mm frames, but they didn't.

See the US Military human visual field/cone info it's equal in both the H & V planes, similar to 4:3. It is based on human visual capability no?

Re AR I strongly believe as an HT enthusaist all AR's must have the desired impact. Each film should be viewed on it's own merit. Irrespective of the projection screen AR of choice, be it projecting 2.35:1 or 16:9 vari the seating position to maintain the impact sought.

[Highjinx]

like mark techer said at the selby gtg, a good step forward for scope would be if the studios broke BD spec and made them anamorphic like DVDs were, otherwise your still dealing with a 16:9 format image, no matter what the source material !

Without a doubt having anamorphically encoded disks would be a leap forward in detail as long as the studios encoded the disks with greater detail and not simply map the 1920 x 810 section of the capture to the 1920 x 1080 frame.

The DCI spec is quite revealing:

1.78:1/16:9 is 1998 x 1080

2.35:1 is 2048 x 858

Interestingly no anamorphic encoding is used for the source material, however scaling of the source material to fit the full projector panel(1.78:1/16:9) along the use of an anamorphic lens to gain greater light output to enable larger projected image sizes is permitted. There is a disclaimer saying 'some' studios will not allow this.

I doubt we will see anamorphically encoded disks, but it would be good to see studios use a 25%+ higher bitrate/less compression if possible on the 2.35:1 disks, so both zoomers and A-Lens uses alike can benefit.

[Highjinx]

Think OZ and AB should design the world's first flipable two sided screen, one side 2.35:1 the other side a less wide but taller 1.78:1 screen of equal area to the 2.35:1 screen. Remote controlled stand out brackets extended >auto flip screen> brackets retract.

Anamorphic lens used with the 2.35:1 side and the lens slides out of the way for 1.78:1 use.